Film Review

star1-5

When it arrived on multiplex screens last year, Matthis van Heijningen Jr.'s remake of The Thing proved a modest, mostly middling, popcorn flick. A box-office disappointment, it nonetheless proved an interesting case study. With his Thing, van Heijningen fused the beats of John Carpenter's superb 1982 Antarctic-set actioner (itself a remake of Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby's The Thing From Another World) onto an ostensibly "original" story that dutifully laid the scene for Carpenter's film—a deft, if ungainly, synthesis befitting the source material. Whatever its faults, van Heijningen's film operated loyally, and effectively in places, in the shadow of Carpenter's, minting a handy connect-the-dots boilerplate for how to make this kind of movie in the process.

With Prometheus, Ridley Scott attempts to pull off the same trick. The filmmaker isn't as concerned with matching the clockwork pacing or clinical tension of 1979's Alien, a movie holding the double distinction as being one of the most perfectly constructed horror pictures in the history of the medium and, with apologies to Blade Runner (and his Orwellian Macintosh computer commercial), quite obviously the best film Ridley Scott has ever made.

The decision to start from the beginning is telling. Since 1979, Alien has hatched all manner of adjacent properties en route to establishing itself as a franchise, with H.R. Giger's acid-spitting extra-terrestrials being co-opted as stand-in adversarial variables, fit to pit against one or another comparably bankable franchise figure in comic books, video games, and spin-off films (most notably the otherworldly big-game hunter Predator in the Alien Vs. Predator movies, but also Superman, Green Lantern, Judge Dredd, Batman, Terminator, and even you—yes, you—in the Australian "laser skirmish" theme-park attraction AVPX: Alien vs. Predator vs. You). It's not only that the licensed, canonized Alien film sequels paled in comparison to Scott's original, it's that the alien itself has been sold off like a breakfast-cereal mascot, diluting the taut perfection of that 1979 film with each subsequent relicensing. Prometheus seems conceived as a remedy to this, an attempt to extricate the franchise from its intractable outgrowths, an effort to deflate its bloat. Yet it unfolds like more of a knee-jerk rejoinder, a mawkishly brainy overreaction.

Prometheus opens with Scott's camera heli-tracking across some wild and windy moor, where a bleached, muscular humanoid of presumably extraterrestrial origin disrobes, acknowledges a disc hovering in the atmosphere, then consumes a viscous black fluid that ravages its body, sending it disintegrating into a river below. However many eons later, circa C.E. 2089, paramour archeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a cave etching depicting a human figure pointing toward a cluster of stars. The constellation's formation matches a number of others indexed across ancient human civilization, constituting sufficient evidence to justify aging zillionaire Peter Weylan (Guy Pearce, heavily augmented by prosthetics, and likely some CGI) sending a team of scientists to the far reaches of the galaxy, trailing the origins of human life on a hunch.

It's to the film's credit that it doesn't futz about with David's ulterior motives, as he slinks about executing a hidden-agenda subroutine stored in his memory banks as the rest of the crew treks into dusty caves in search of "Engineers"—aliens believed to have kick-started life on Earth. Alien fans, after all, are wise to the shady machinations of Ian Holm's android in the original, so there's no use belaboring the point in a film that, despite all pretensions to contrary, is aimed squarely at the franchise's embedded audience. Prometheus positions itself as a corrective to stuff like Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, but it's not much different: flattering fan-service, albeit configured across loftier axes. Prometheus plays out like bogusly high-minded fan fiction. It seems to suggest—or rather, insist—that all along, the Alien films have been about something other than resourceful sci-fi/horror plotting or space-marine romping. Prometheus launches itself well out of the franchise's stratosphere in an attempt to pretend that Alien has somehow always been about the Big Issues—life, the universe, and everything in between.

Prometheus underpins its marginally tense, fleetingly exciting horror/action/thriller hybrid with inch-deep philosophical pretensions, struggling to parse the expanses (morally and literally) that we'd travel to satisfy our basic human inquisitiveness. Along the way, Scott tries to dress up this tedium with space-zombies, space-dune buggy getaways, and even a space-abortion—admittedly, the film's best, and funniest, scene. It aspires to Stanley Kubrick's 2001, but in its maddeningly unresolved plot threads and cornball cosmic mysticism, it lands closer to Mission to Mars—though Prometheus lacks any action set piece as gripping as the Brian De Palma film's sentient sandstorm.

As the ship's crew is thinned, and a series of genetic mutations and chest-burstings bring us closer to the birth of Alien's instantly recognizable monster, Prometheus seems to delusionally maintain that its modest thrills are being enlivened by deeper concerns. By the time the film's ivory-skinned god-figure titan straps into a WWII-style gun turret, it's clear these answers to all its highfalutin half-questions are nowhere to be found. Instead, Prometheus pesters its audience into deferring to its thin profundities. Though certainly, many sitting in the theater may well wonder, albeit with a sense of imminent urgency, "Why are we here?"

And open ended-ness isn't the biggest problem with prometheus,its the arbitrary stupidity of everything else.

Its a series of mindboggingly stupid scenes arbitrarily cobbled together with no plot structure and no payoff for anything.

Its fascinating how they could get EVERY LAST THING about it so wrong!

It should be studied like the holocaust.

Posted by robthom on 2013-08-10 19:39:11

That was a good post.

Maybe you should be a professional reviewer.

If richard roper found this movie "epic" then you're definitely more qualified to do his job then he is.

Unbelievable how many shlub reviewers gave this trainwreck a fresh tomato!

The inmates have inherited the asylum!

Posted by robthom on 2013-08-10 19:23:13

"Why are we here"

:)Great punchline.

Posted by robthom on 2013-08-10 19:17:34

I belong to a generation that had the opportunity to see the Alien and Blade Runner during their original theatrical releases. That is a very roundabout way of saying - I am old.

Only a person with great knowledge and respect toward the works of Ridley Scott could have written such a review of this disaster.

Great work, sir. I shall be coming back to Slant because of you.

As for me, not being a professional reviewer, I can say this:

Old directors, with no one to tell you "no" and without an edge to recognize a garbage of a script, just stop, OK? Please stop and let the young people create something better... like the stuff you created when you were young.

I have been so saddened by watching this film. I felt like, you know, when watching a great boxer fighting his last fight. But this boxer went too long with his career and did not retire in his prime. He is still great and smart but is being beaten to a pulp by a young mix of muscle, will and sinew.

Our boxer, hero of our childhood dreams, still standing there, his legs still propping him up, moving his fists with no sense of purpose, leaking all over the place.

To the horror of his fans.

Posted by Anonymous on 2012-12-18 02:56:20

I watched this last night and couldn't hold myself from coming here to rant.

The only mystery for me is how can anyone consider this film intelligent or even unresolved. It's so terribly simplistic and blase.

The filmmakers seem so happy and satisfied with the fact that they are making an Alien film that they don't bother about fleshing the plot, character and mood. Scott seems just interested in connecting the dots rather building tension or atmosphere (hallmarks of his excellent Alien). The final "sacrifice" by the crew is so jarring and sudden that I couldn't believe that it actually happened!

It's not that I have a problem with people suggesting alternative evolution theories about us humans but, damn, at least, make it convincing!

Posted by bandwagon on 2012-09-26 20:50:25

I think you're right Retsudo, but in the end its just a story, and that's what I want when I go to the theatre, a story. And it's so rare to get a good one these days.

Moon is a great movie :D

Posted by Anonymous on 2012-06-29 05:23:20

I've never understood that point of view to be honest joatrovao.

I realise Prometheus is a film but why does that mean that it (or any other film featuring actual scientific ideas) should be given a pass for blatantly misrepresenting facts and theories or scientific attitudes, or indeed for lazily relying on existing stereotypes and formulae?

Maybe I'm silly for expecting film makers to act as if they're engaged in a work of some significance, or for taking the audience seriously. I've been told before that I shouldn't be annoyed when a film plays fast and loose with facts, gets basic stuff wrong or simply rehashes an old formula.

I can't help but feel that I'm right though - and that the people who don't seem to mind, while they enjoy watching movies, consitute a kind of fifth column whose casual enjoyment is leading to lower and lower expectations and worse and worse cinematic outcomes.

I will admit to being not wholly consistent on this issue - I love Duncan Jones's "Moon" despite the problem with lunar gravity in that movie :) Perhaps I'm part of the fifth column and not on the moral high - ground at all :P

Posted by Retsudo on 2012-06-26 04:21:32

@khlthe2nd and Retsudo, I don't want to insult americans, what I meant is that there are 2 ways of writing a script - Closed story also called american style, and open story, the european style. obviouly there are both americans and europeans writing both styles. Sorry if I hurt some feelings.

I don't understand why people are judging Prometheus under realism, or real life scenario. ITS SI FI! you shouldn't care if they flush the evolution theory down the drain or wipe their asses on Darwin's Origin of Species! you shouldn't care if the biologist in the movie says something stupid under real science literacy, ITS SI FI! It's not an essay written on NG Science edition.

Its a great si fi movie that glued me to the screen for 120 min like no other movie in the last 10 - 15 years. I'm a fan of the genre and very few movies got this intensity. 4 stars for me!

Posted by Anonymous on 2012-06-25 11:30:44

@joaotrovao I'm not American and I found Prometheus to be superficial and rather bland. Yes it looks spectacular (just like everything else does nowadays) but as a narrative film, as an attempt to emotionally engage an audience it is a failure. Actually that isn't quite true, looking at audience reactions it does seem that a certain demographic really is in awe of its depth and significance - but these are probably the same people who can't distinguish mawkish sentimentality from gravitas and call themselves "spiritual". (Quite a number of critics seem to have been "carried away" too - they have no excuse really.)

Prometheus actually is the latest in quite a long line of films from Ridley Scott that are visually arresting and epic in scale and yet fail as human stories. Forget "Lawrence of Arabia", if Ridley Scott could make a film as emotionally engaging as Lean's "Hobson's Choice" he would have taken a big step as a film maker.

Finally, in defence of basic scientific literacy I ought to point out that Scott has the team's biologist say that if aliens had seeded earth with life then this would "overturn" the theory of evolution. No biologist would make this error. Life that was "seeded" on Earth would then evolve via a process of natural selection - evolution still proceeds and is in no way "overturned".

Posted by Retsudo on 2012-06-25 05:06:58

This is a well written review.

I would point out that a film doesn\'t have to fall into dogma. An experience that asks great questions is as valid as one that provides great answers. Keep in mind the Ridley Scott is an artist with superb visual flair.

One of my mottos is this: The question is not why are we here; the question is why are you here.

Posted by soulartist2 on 2012-06-16 14:42:22

SPOILERS! I\'ve seen the film twice already (midnight IMAX 3D with $10 in MovieMoney with an equivalently valued Alien Blu - ray on my shelf as a trade - off, plus a subsequent date night at the drive - in), and the more I think about it, the more it pisses me off how much opportunity was thrown out the window with the script at hand. Yes, there are connections, and yes, a lot of the movie is \"good\" (some of the performances, the surgery scene, about 15 collective minutes of imagery, the opening by the waterfall, the 2001 - esque opening shot, the shout - out to Lawrence of Arabia, Charlize Theron getting crushed), but there\'s so little meat holding it all together (tension, drama, awe) that the aftertaste is, to me, unavoidably bitter. It\'s tepidness as a film is equaled only by the brilliance of its advertising campaign. By the time Larry and Curly approached an alien tentacle like a lost kitten, I was done, except I didn\'t want to believe it; Prometheus is only scantly more intelligent than the AvP sequels that violated this series. This is earnest fan pandering with high - minded lip service at best - 2001 as an action horror movie for the iPhone generation. I\'d probably have gone with a fond - hearted 2 star rating for the sake of those elements mentioned above, but for true cinematic integrity, I believe Mr. Semley hit the nail on the head.

Posted by Jesse Cataldo on 2012-06-13 18:34:39

Honestly, Slant might as well dump the star ratings system. One and a half stars? Honestly? Are you judging it in comparison to film in general, or the other films in the series?

This isn't to say that the movie is great...upon first viewing, it's a narrative mess, and treads terrain familiar to too many recent films. However, there's enough just in the visuals to justify ranking Prometheus better than average, and we're not even getting at some of the excellent performances.

Posted by Anonymous on 2012-06-12 20:53:57

joaotrovao: there's no need to insult Americans, but I will tell you your overall reaction is spot on. I saw the movie yestrday and almost every negative review I read missed the main points stated in the script. This movie makes sense, but too many reviews miss the point while trying to make "something out of nothing" with other things in the movie. There were a lot of connections missed by many folks.

Posted by Anonymous on 2012-06-11 07:25:06

I usually dont comment on other people reviews, even when it pisses me off, because its stupid to do so and I usually dont care about what other people think, but this time I just cant stay shut. First of all, Prometheus doesnt want to pretend Alien (1979) was about anything. Prometheus want's to be about a lot of things for itself. The fact that it incorporates Alien (1979) in its story is simply because its a familiar creature to the public, a lot easier than creating a full new concept around a creature that people dont are familiar with. Alien (1979) is a horror - sci fi masterpiece, that you got right, its one of the best suspense movies ever made. But is primarily that: an horror suspense movie, that occurs in another planet, with an alien killing everyone. In the same way, Aliens (1986) is primarily an action movie. Prometheus is a pure sci fi movie, period. It's a movie that asks questions and makes you think and discuss it in the end. If you got sad, angry or confused with the unresolved plot dont watch sci fi. That's the general problem with americans about movies, you need your answers or in the end you'll go home frustrated, because you are incapable of thinking with your own heads.

Second, of course it aspires to 2001, every sci fi movie does! Just like every ballet dancer aspires to Baryshnikov, I made the analogy because you seem to know a lot more about ballet than about sci fi.

The "WWII - style gun turret" is the same chair that apears in Alien (1979) with the enigmatic space jokey, now called Engineers, thence the connection between the two movies.

And now I wonder, albeit with a sense of imminent urgency, "Why am I here?"

Posted by Anonymous on 2012-06-10 03:32:05

Great review. I agree completely. Well mostly. I thought the abortion scene was misplaced only because of what happens afterwards. This film is pretty to look at but there is no substance beyond that. What a waste. I also found the scene in the final act where a couple of survivors are fleeing from the falling big "thing" dumb as hell. If you are trying to get away from something and you are in its ever - growing shadow, that should tell you that you are doing it wrong. haha.

Posted by gemini0577 on 2012-06-08 18:15:19

I found the story heavy handed; still, I was engaged with it because of the performances (especially Noomi's and Michael's, both great) and the beautiful visuals. Damn! This movie looks awesome, and the 3D is put to great effect! But even if I don't regret the $13 I spent, I wish I could say more good things about this film.

Posted by enuthal on 2012-06-08 00:10:46

Maybe there will be a director's cut of this movie coming out with an extra hour of footage because the version I saw didn't make any sense. Boring characters, no mood, a plot that doesn't lead anywhere and (with the exception of the mentioned abortion scene) no memorable scenes.